IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1446 of 2008()
1. DR. SEIOS.J, AGED 26,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
4. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :29/07/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
The appellant had appeared for the Entrance Examination for
admission to the Post Graduate Courses conducted by the second
respondent, the Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram.
After completing the process of selection, she was admitted to the course
for Diploma in Clinical Pathology (DCP) on the basis of the option made
by the her on June 9, 2008. It is not in dispute that the Centralized
Allotment Process was completed on the next day, i.e. on June 10, 2008.
2. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge was that, she was denied admission to Diploma in Radiotherapy
(DMRT) inspite of availability of vacancy. According to the appellant,
the request of re-allotment or change of option made by her ought to have
been accepted by the second respondent. Since the second respondent did
not accede to the above request, the appellant prayed for appropriate
reliefs in the writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge noticed the stand taken by the
second respondent that re-allotment could not have been made since the
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
2
last date for allotment had already expired on June 10, 2008. In this
connection the learned Judge also took note of the clear directive issued
by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in
Mridhul Dhar (Minor) and Another v. Union of India and others (2005
(2) SCC 65) to adhere to the time schedule while granting admission to
Medical Courses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention
to Clause XI (C) of the Prospectus for Admission to Medical Post
Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses, 2008. The said clause reads thus:
“(C) Re-allotment
(i) After the CAP, the vacancies arising due to non-
joining and discontinuation of candidates will be filled in
subsequent re-allotment process(es) based on the options
filed by them and on the basis of rank. Whenever a vacancy
arises in a subject after the first selection candidate having
higher option in that subject will be moved over as per their
ranks. The candidates already selected and joined for a
course, when moved over to another subject/college on re-
allotment will have to compulsorily accept that allotment.”
(ii) Newly allotted candidates will have to remit the
required fee in the respective Medical Colleges.
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
3
(iii) If a candidate changes over from one course to
another in the same college, the fees paid for the already
allotted course will be adjusted to the new course.
However, movement from one college to another by re-
allotment will entail the payment of all fees except the
tuition fees. Candidates can seek for refund of all other fees
in the earlier allotted college. The above rule will also
apply to shifting of All India Quota candidates within the
State.
(iv) The final centralised allotment process shall be
done prior to the last date for admission fixed by the
Government of India/Supreme Court of India. The final
CAP and admission will be done simultaneously.
Candidates have to pay the liquidated damages as specified
in clause XIII, if they discontinue the Course after the final
CAP to Medical PG Course. If any vacancy arises after
the final CAP, it is the discretion of the Director of Medical
Education to fill up those vacancies in consultation with the
Government, if necessary. Therefore, the students who
regularly contact the office of the Director of Medical
Education after the final CAP will be considered for those
seats according to their option. (emphasis supplied)
(v) Additional seats, if any, added/sanctioned during
the validity period of the rank list will be filled in
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
4
accordance with the options registered by the candidates at
the time of CAP.
(vi) No allotment/transfer to PG Medical Courses
will be done under any circumstance after the last date of
admission prescribed by the Government of India/Supreme
Court.”
5. It is true that sub-clause (iv) of the above clause stipulates
that if any vacancy arises after the final Centralized Allotment Process, it
would be left to the discretion of the Director of Medical Education to fill
up those vacancies in consultation with the Government, if necessary.
The sub-clause further provides that the students who regularly contact the
office of the Director of Medical Education after the final Centralized
Allotment Process will be considered for those seats according to their
option.
6. It is pointed out by the appellant that the respondents
have admitted that four vacancies are now available to DMRT Course, two
each at Thiruvananthapuram and Calicut. It is contended by the appellant
that no prejudice would be caused to any other candidate and no quota rule
will be disturbed if the appellant is admitted to one of the four vacant
seats. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that no other claimant
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
5
has reportedly approached the respondents so far for allotment of a seat in
the speciality (DMRT) Therefore, the refusal to allow re-allotment is
totally unjust, it is contended.
7. Per contra, Sri.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent, the Medical Council of India, draws our
attention to clause XV of the Prospectus and submits that “re-allotment
would be considered only before the closing of admission as per the
guidelines/directives of the Medical Council of India/Honourable Supreme
Court of India”. He also draws our attention to the various directions
issued by the apex Court in a series of cases in this regard.
8. As mentioned earlier, appellant was allotted a seat for
Diploma in Clinical Pathology as opted by her. The last date for giving
option was June 10, 2008. Appellant wanted to switch over to DMRT
after the cut-off date. But this is not permissible under the Prospectus. It
is true that four seats in DMRT are now lying vacant. Learned
Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that appellant can
be accommodated against one of the vacancies if this Court directs. But in
view of the clauses contained in the Prospectus and also the directive
issued by the apex Court, we are not inclined to issue any direction.
W.A.No.1446 of 2008
6
9. Having considered the rival contentions of the appellant
and the respondents, we do not find any reason to take a different view
contrary to what has been held by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns